Craftsmen Paid for Construction and Then for Renting Stalls at Markets in Zagreb

Alen Havranek entered into an agreement with Tržnice Zagreb in October 1993 to pool funds for the shell construction of stall number 10, measuring 9.04 m² at the Volovčica market, and the contract was signed on March 15, 1995. However, due to incorrect calculations, Havranek (who was then partnered with his mother, Mira Havranek) was instructed to pay 24,525.70 then-DEMs, while the agreement stated he was to pay 20,566 DEM.

Fighting Windmills However, this is not the biggest problem, as Havranek was required by the agreement to make a ‘final financial settlement of all construction costs with the obligation to settle the differences in mutual debts and claims…’, which could only mean that Tržnice Zagreb was also investing its money in the construction of the stall. However, not only did Tržnice not contribute a dime so far, but Havranek overpaid for the construction. According to the findings of court expert Mile Novaković, at the time of the agreement (November 1995), the construction price was 600 DEM per square meter, and the price of construction land in the first zone in Zagreb was 250 DEM per square meter. In total, the square of that object was worth 850 DEM, meaning that 9.04 m² was worth 7,684 DEM. Havranek, we repeat, paid the amount of 24,525.70 DEM, which means he paid 2,713.02 DEM per square meter for the construction. Thus, three times more than the estimate of the court expert.

The construction was led by Tržnice Zagreb, which chose the contractors themselves, and according to the agreement, although they did not pay a kuna for the construction, Havranek’s object is still in their ownership. This means that Havranek paid Tržnice a ten-year rent, albeit, as agreed, somewhat cheaper than others because he was one of the investors, but he claims that the rent price was later increased. At the end of the speech in 2004, a new contract was presented to him for signing, in which all rights from the previous contract were denied, and many contractual provisions were significantly less favorable. Although he was aware of the practically feudal relationship imposed on him by Tržnice Zagreb in the agreement, he endured the first ten years earning in his shoemaking workshop, but then, like other ‘tenants’, he had enough. He decided to fight against the arbitrariness of Tržnice, which had a sovereign position over the craftsmen.

Ownership at Least Half It is indeed strange that he had to pay rent at all, as experts claim that this is a typical partnership agreement (as well as similar agreements for 182 craftsmen offered to them by Tržnice Zagreb in the 1990s) and that ownership should at least be shared equally, not to mention that Havranek should have been the owner of that object.
Havranek sued Tržnice Zagreb, which have since become part of Zagrebački holding, but to this day, that problem has not been resolved, and all other craftsmen who invested in similar objects at Zagreb markets have it as well. Part of the responsibility certainly lies with him, as he should have been careful about what he signed, although it is clear from all of the above that he was deceived because he overpaid for the construction of the object. His lawyers believe that the Law on Obligations has been violated because Tržnice Zagreb abused their monopolistic position by forcing Havranek into such a contract, which is therefore null and void in the part that states that the object is owned by Tržnice. Havranek claims that he was warned not to dig too deep into this matter as it involves million-dollar malversations, but he says he will not give up.